tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22328123365231842382015-07-31T08:56:03.990-07:00Fisheries - Truth and FictionPete Northhttps://plus.google.com/111698239849870709317noreply@blogger.comBlogger180125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2232812336523184238.post-33893454591216793242015-07-31T08:56:00.000-07:002015-07-31T08:56:04.001-07:00Not bad, surprisinglyBertie Armstrong chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation has a surprisingly good <a href="http://www.scotsman.com/news/watch-for-catches-in-casting-vote-in-eu-referendum-1-3844497">article</a> in <i>The Scotsman</i> in which he sums up how the question of fisheries should affect the way we think about the forthcoming EU Referendum. The summary of the advantages if Britain regains control of her fisheries is good as is his point that renegotiations should include the subject as well.<br /><br />Alas, so far there is no sign that the Prime Minister and his team have any interest in discussing repatriation of fisheries as part of the new deal for Britain in the EU (should we decide to stay in).Adminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14479589914570209459noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2232812336523184238.post-80640129270959379212015-07-31T08:44:00.001-07:002015-07-31T08:44:16.476-07:00A new fishing war - this time with GuernseyThe UK government (though, as we know, decisions to do with fisheries is not taken by that particular entity no matter how DEFRA preens itself) <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-guernsey-33718382">has banned</a> Guernsey fishermen from UK and EU waters (in fact, EU waters since there really &nbsp;is no such thing as UK waters under the equal access of the CFP).<br /><br />There <a href="http://www.itv.com/news/channel/update/2015-07-30/uk-department-says-banning-fishing-is-last-resort/">appears to be some disagreement</a> about events leading up to the ban. HMG says they have been negotiating since March and the ban is being used, they hope temporarily, as a last resort. <br /><blockquote>When the ruling was announced this morning though, Commerce and Employment Minister Deputy Kevin Stewart said the decision had come completely “out of the blue”.</blockquote><br />The details seem a little complicated, though the BBC gives a good summary<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-guernsey-33718382"> here</a>.<br /><br /><blockquote>The Fisheries Management Agreement means all commercial fishing within the Bailiwick's 12 nautical miles (nm) has to be licensed. <br /><br />It also means Bailiwick vessels need licences to fish in EU and UK waters. <br /><br />However, the lack of a quota policy has led to the UK suspending licences held by Bailiwick vessels from Saturday. <br /><br />This decision does not prevent any Bailiwick fishermen from continuing to fish in local waters in accordance with their licences, but does prevent Bailiwick vessels from fishing in EU waters, which includes those of the UK. Guernsey's Commerce and Employment Department said it was "surprised and shocked at the short notice and lack of consultation". <br /><br />It said George Eustice MP, UK Fisheries Minister, explained the move was in response to the States of Guernsey's policy of not applying UK quota controls to Bailiwick vessels in Bailiwick waters in accordance with the FMA. The BBC has approached the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for comment. <br /><br />The Commerce and Employment department said not applying the UK quotas had been agreed in the Fisheries Management Agreement. It warned the imposition of the quotas could make many island fishing businesses "unviable".</blockquote><br />Watch this space for updates on the story. Adminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14479589914570209459noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2232812336523184238.post-68993015722052350472015-07-16T07:55:00.001-07:002015-07-16T07:55:38.539-07:00Sheryll Murray's comments on fisheries and renegotiationAs we have mentioned on <a href="http://trawlingfortruth.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/the-all-party-parliamentary-group-for.html">this blog</a>, Sheryl Murray MP for South East Cornwall is now the Chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Fisheries and we do expect great things from her.<br /><br />She has written <a href="http://www.conwayfor.org/the_eu_renegotiations_are_an_opportunity_for_the_uk_fishing_industry">a piece</a> for <a href="http://www.conwayfor.org/">Conservative Way Forward</a>&nbsp;about EU renegotiations and the fishing industry, which is good enough as a starting point but we do hope she will go further. Actually, we fully expect her to do so.<br /><br />Most of the piece is a useful summary of the history of the fishing industry since the seventies and the unhelpfulness of the Common Fisheries Policy with which we agree entirely though we would have preferred greater emphasis on the fact that this is a political structure with decisions being made at the centre with close regard to the essence of the policy that Ms Murray does mention:<br /><blockquote>Enshrined in every Basic Regulation after that time is the Principle of, “Equal Access to a Common Resource”.<br /><br /></blockquote>This is enshrined because it is the basis of that agreement and has actually been in the treaties since the Maastricht one of evil fame. <br /><br />The much touted reforms have not altered that by a whisker or a fishbone. Equal access and common resource are still the guiding principles.<br /><br />Sheryll Murray ends the piece with the following words:<br /><br /><blockquote>As David Cameron pushes for better terms for the British people in his renegotiation talks with the EU, we all have a unique opportunity to finally put fishing at the heart of discussions. Now is the time for the Prime Minister to rectify the dreadful mistakes of the past and include restoration of national control over the UK 200 mile median line limit so we can operate freely just like our neighbours in Iceland and Norway. </blockquote><br />Indeed, we would like to be in the same position as Iceland and Norway: we would like to control our own fishing waters and negotiate on our own behalf. There is, as it happens, only one way of achieving that state of affairs: by leaving the Common Fisheries Policy and repatriating powers over the fishing industry to this country. So far, the Prime Minister has shown no sign of negotiating that exit.Adminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14479589914570209459noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2232812336523184238.post-84656598120155383102015-07-08T09:02:00.001-07:002015-07-08T09:02:53.117-07:00Better Off Out and the Common Fisheries PolicyThere is an organization in Parliament called Better Off Out. It consists of a number of MPs and Peers who believe not only that we should have a referendum on whether we want to stay in the European Union - that battle seems to have been won with only the SNP, rather bizarrely, opposing it - but also that we should eventually get out. The group also includes other organizations and individuals who share that view and, already, the discussion on how best to win that referendum has begun.<br /><br />FAL's representative contributed an obvious idea: the Common Fisheries Policy is an economic and ecological disaster and those so-called reforms have changed nothing seriously. (There will be some more blogs on that subject in the near future.) Withdrawal from it would be greeted on all sides of the political spectrum though possibly not by the SNP, whose thinking about the EU remains erratic.<br /><br />There are two ways of using this. One is to keep insisting that David Cameron, in his negotiations, put repatriation of the fisheries policy on the table. Some preliminary work has been done by Lord Stoddart of Swindon on that as this blog has pointed out but HMG continues to prevaricate and side-step the issue. Could our readers not lobby their MPs on the subject? After all, the Prime Minister wants to bring back the best deal for the country and what could be better for it if the management of fisheries as well as negotiations with other fishing countries such as Norway and Iceland were back in our hands?<br /><br />Secondly, we can start trying to persuade people that if we cannot get control of the fisheries back (or control of anything else) we should leave the EU through legitimate means and think about how we would run affairs in the business ourselves.Adminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14479589914570209459noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2232812336523184238.post-16212622032800408682015-06-30T09:55:00.000-07:002015-06-30T09:55:18.650-07:00Yet more avoidance of the subjectAs this blog <a href="http://trawlingfortruth.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/good-question-poor-answer.html">reported</a> Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked HMG whether they intended to discuss repatriation of agriculture and fisheries (the last a potentially very popular move in this country) in their negotiations about EU reform and got a very evasive answer.<br /><br />Not satisfied with that he went back into the fray and <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Lords/2015-06-16/HL520/">asked</a> HMG: <br /><blockquote>further to the Written Answer by Lord Gardiner of Kimble on 11 June, whether the Prime Minister has yet discussed with other European Union leaders the repatriation of agriculture and fisheries policies to member states, and what position he has taken in those discussions.</blockquote><br />Um, no, is the answer though phrased somewhat differently by Lord Gardiner of Kimble or, to be quite precise, his minions:<br /><br /><blockquote>Discussions are at an early stage. My reply of 11 June referred to some of the areas where the Government believes the EU needs to change.</blockquote><br />It did not mention fisheries. Does that mean that it might be raised as a subject at some later stage?Adminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14479589914570209459noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2232812336523184238.post-60900407983981763942015-06-16T09:55:00.000-07:002015-06-16T09:55:56.712-07:00The All Party Parliamentary Group for Fisheries<a href="http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/mrs-sheryll-murray/4100">Sheryll Murray</a>, MP for South-East Cornwall, who has been involved in various organizations to do with fishing, such as Save Britain's Fish and FAL, has put up this message on her wall on Facebook:<br /><blockquote>I was very pleased to be elected Chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Fisheries and am hoping the Group will undertake some reports on various fisheries issues. I am pleased that the group has elected Vice Chairmen from Labour, Liberal Democrat, SNP and SDLP parties and look forward to working together to get the best for our fishermen. <br /><br />I would like to pay tribute to Austin Mitchell who was Chairman of the Group for so many years. Indeed, I attended many meetings of the Group myself as an Industry representative since 1991.</blockquote><br />We look forward to working with Sheryll and have already approached her with a hope and expectation of seeing many useful reports on the reality of the Common Fisheries Policy. <br /><br />The blog will have a full list of the members as soon as it will be available.Adminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14479589914570209459noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2232812336523184238.post-36023025616290191532015-06-12T05:49:00.002-07:002015-06-12T05:49:38.368-07:00Good question, poor answerLord Stoddart of Swindon, a fighter of many years' standing against the European Union and, particularly, against the Common Fisheries Policy, put down the following <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Lords/2015-06-02/HL206/">Written Question</a>:<br /><blockquote>To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will press for negotiations for the reform of the European Union to include the repatriation of agriculture and fisheries powers to member states.</blockquote><br />If there is one set of powers we need to repatriate it is that of fisheries but is the Prime Minister likely to negotiate that? Well, not according to HMG's reply:<br /><br /><blockquote>The Prime Minister has started to discuss his plans for EU reform and renegotiation with other EU leaders. He has been clear that the plans involve reforming welfare and immigration rules, increasing economic competitiveness and cutting red tape to create jobs and growth for hard working families, and protecting the UK’s interests outside the euro. It also means halting the constant flow of powers to Brussels including by ensuring a stronger role for national Parliaments.</blockquote><br />Is that a yes or a no?Adminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14479589914570209459noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2232812336523184238.post-4588391171396944282015-06-03T09:50:00.001-07:002015-06-03T09:50:52.262-07:00Commission publishes annual consultation paperThe European Commission has published its annual consultation paper in preparation for setting next year's fish quota later in the year. It is now asking for the views of Member States, the fishing industry and non-governmental organisations in regional Advisory Councils, as well as interested citizens and organisations via an online <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/maritimeaffairs_fisheries/consultations/fishing-opportunities-2016/index_en.htm">public consultation</a>. The input will be used by the Commission when it will be making for the 2016 fishing opportunities during this autumn.<br /><br />You can find the full text of the <i>Consultation on the fishing opportunities for 2016 under the Common Fisheries Policy</i> <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/maritimeaffairs_fisheries/consultations/fishing-opportunities-2016/doc/com_2015_239_en.pdf">here</a>&nbsp;and the conditions for the consultation <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/maritimeaffairs_fisheries/consultations/fishing-opportunities-2016/index_en.htm">here</a>.Adminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14479589914570209459noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2232812336523184238.post-53901941486709602242015-05-29T02:31:00.001-07:002015-05-29T02:33:34.641-07:00Occasionally the SNP recalls fishingIn Westminster the debates on the Queen's Speech go on and the SNP representatives, having made themselves somewhat objectionable by their behaviour in and out of the Chamber, are settling down though they will insist on wearing a white rose, which they insist is that of Scotland while others suggest might be of Yorkshire. We suspect that discussion will run on and on.<br /><br />One of the speakers in the debate was <a href="http://www.snp.org/people/stephen-gethins">Stephen Gethins</a>, MP for North East Fife, an almost unexpected victory for his party, and the SNP spokesman for Europe. He is also a man who has spent his career in the NGO sector, much of which receives money from the EU. As has been pointed out on <a href="http://trawlingfortruth.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/time-to-take-stock.html">this blog</a>, the SNP stand on "Europe" is somewhat incoherent and, at present, they seem to be against the IN/OUT referendum, with Nicola Sturgeon, the incoming First Minister <a href="http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/sturgeon-scots-must-not-exit-eu-against-our-will-1-3783222">maintaining </a>that it would be undemocratic to impose the results of that referendum on Scotland.<br /><br />There are two points that Ms Sturgeon seems to have ignored. One is the obvious one that the people of Scotland had voted decisively to stay in the United Kingdom and did so in the full knowledge that there might soon be an EU referendum, which will be done on a national and not regional basis. Unless Ms Sturgeon is arguing that the people of Scotland are uniquely stupid and, therefore, their opinion can be set aside as being of no real value backed by no understanding, she had better accept that. We may add that if Ms Sturgeon really knew Scottish history and the history of Scotland in the world, she would realize how very untrue that is.<br /><br />Secondly, as we have suggested before, it is not impossible that in the IN/OUT referendum Scotland as a whole will also vote for the UK to come out of the European Union. What then? What will Ms Sturgeon say then?<br /><br />Back to Mr Gethins, who made <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmhansrd/cm150527/debtext/150527-0003.htm#150527-0003.htm_spnew33">a very creditable maiden speech</a>, observing all the rules, thanking the Speaker for the help the new boys and girls on the block had been given and referring with admiration though obvious political disagreement to his predecessor in North East Fife, Sir Menzies Campbell.<br /><br />He then enumerated the various developments in his constituency, all of which require international trade, something we would have even outside the EU but, clearly Mr Gethins thinks that because the products of the excellent distilleries in his constituency need to be and will be sold, we ought to start thinking about a common EU defence policy. Not a particularly logical thought.<br /><br />However, it seems that not everything in the garden is lovely: <br /><blockquote>None of us on the SNP Benches is saying Europe does not need reforms. The common fisheries policy has had a devastating impact on communities across my constituency in the East Neuk of Fife and elsewhere across Scotland, as my colleagues will testify. Similarly, the expensive practice of moving the Parliament from Brussels to Strasbourg every month defies any logic in these times of straitened budgets.</blockquote><br />Gosh, really? You mean the devastation that the CFP wrought on the British fishing industry is in the same category as the, admittedly ridiculous, monthly circus of moving the European Parliament from Brussels to Strasbourg (which is also written into the treaties, incidentally)? Do Mr Gethins's constituents know that his thinking is along those lines?<br /><br />More to the point, exactly how does Mr Gethins propose to reform the fisheries policy in any meaningful way while we stay in it and in the EU?Adminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14479589914570209459noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2232812336523184238.post-68971881732377963052015-05-27T09:02:00.001-07:002015-05-27T09:06:24.912-07:00Time to take stockIt has taken us a little while to take stock of the post-election situation and for that we apologize to our readers. A rather boring election campaign was followed by an exciting election night and the results were unexpected in many quarters. For those of us who predicted a small Conservative majority the sight of so many commentators and pollsters with, not to put too fine a point on it, egg on their faces, was quite a pleasure.<br /><br />Still, one needs to get over that and look at what is happening. A Conservative government, with no coalition partner who can be blamed for things possibly going wrong is something that will take some getting used to. In the first place, that means an IN/OUT referendum on the European Union as it was made clear in today's <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/queens-speech-2015">Queen's Speech</a>.<br /><blockquote>My government will renegotiate the United Kingdom’s relationship with the European Union and pursue reform of the European Union for the benefit of all member states. <br /><br />Alongside this, early legislation will be introduced to provide for an in-out referendum on membership of the European Union before the end of 2017.</blockquote><br />The SNP are already making noises in favour of another Scottish "independence" referendum, should the UK, as a whole, vote to leave (that is when they are not breaking Parliamentary convention by rushing in to occupy long-standing members' places and applauding their leader for making a fairly pedestrian speech). What remains unclear is whether that demand would still be made if the vote in Scotland was clearly in favour of Brexit - a word we must get used to as it will be around a lot.<br /><br />The SNP's situation is rather curious. Out of all the parties it has done best of all under the first past the post system yet it has, though rather half-heartedly, <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/ukip-lib-dems-greens-snp-and-plaid-cymru-sign-478000strong-petition-for-voting-reform-10259079.html">shown some support</a> for those who are calling (as it happens after every election) for a reform of the system towards some form of proportional representation. The truth is that a national PR system will leave the regional parties like the SNP and Plaid Cymru nowhere while a regional PR system will not satisfy those who think that electoral reform will get rid of anomalies. After all, it can hardly be considered as fair to have a party with 56 seats on 4.7 per cent of the vote when the Liberal-Democrats have 8 on 7.9 per cent and UKIP only e on 12.6 per cent, if one considers that the national vote is what matters. Those who prefer a system that links electors directly with the representative they vote for, that is their MP accept these anomalies, knowing full well that there is no such thing as a completely fair system. The truth is that fairness in politics is well nigh impossible to define, let alone put into place.<br /><br />It is interesting to compare the SNP votes with those cast in the independence referendum of last year, particularly as we hear a great deal about this being a sort of a second referendum without anybody saying so. In fact, the question of Scottish independence was not raised during the electoral campaign and it is hard to prove that all those who voted for the SNP did so because they believed in it.<br /><br />In fact, the SNP vote, at 1,454,436 was lower than the Yes vote in the referendum, 1,617,989, let alone the No vote at 2,001,926. The turn-out, at 71.1 per cent was higher than UK average at 66.1 per cent but considerably lower than the referendum turn-out at 84.59 per cent. It is, in the opinion of this blog, hard to prove that the overwhelming SNP success on May 7 was really a vote for Scottish independence, which was roundly rejected in the referendum.<br /><br />So much for that. What of the SNP's view on the European Union, the country's membership of it and, above all, on the common fisheries policy. This blog has maintained for a long time that the SNP's understanding of the common fisheries policy is faulty to put it mildly (<a href="http://trawlingfortruth.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/from-fals-june-newsletter.html">here</a> and <a href="http://trawlingfortruth.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/the-snp-changes-tack.html">here</a> among others).<br /><br />It would seem that others have noticed problems as well. David Torrance, a well known historian, biographer and commentator on Scottish affairs <a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/snps-incoherent-position-on-staying-in-europe.127008926">wrote</a> two days ago in <i>The Herald</i>&nbsp;that the SNP's position on staying in "Europe" was incoherent.<br /><br /><blockquote>Europe is one of those issues on which the SNP has an apparently simple position (pro) but which, on closer examination, becomes a bit of a mess. Shortly before last year's European Parliament elections Mr Salmond, Nicola Sturgeon et al started inserting little caveats into their pronouncements, largely to the effect that the European Union wasn't perfect, "far from it". <br /><br />But to my knowledge there's been no attempt to explain in what way they would help make it a more perfect union. Indeed, there's little evidence the SNP has done any serious thinking about the EU since around 1988, when it committed to "independence in Europe", a slogan rather than a policy. <br /><br />Even that didn't make an awful lot of sense: why so alive to sovereignty within the UK but relatively relaxed when it comes to the EU? <br /><br />But it goes deeper than that, for the roll call of things the SNP doesn't like about Europe is quite long: the single currency, Common Fisheries Policy and closer fiscal integration, which the present First Minister has several times made clear she doesn't support. Even the European Convention on Human Rights (which exists separately from the EU) has come under fire from Nationalists, chiefly its ruling against a blanket ban on voting rights for prisoners. <br /><br />Then there's the rhetoric. SNP press releases rail against the "Tory obsession with ripping Scotland and the rest of the UK out of the EU" and Scotland being "dragged out" against its will. Yet when Unionists deployed similar language to describe Scotland vis-Ã -vis the UK they were accused of being alarmist and melodramatic. Similarly, it's difficult to argue that Scotland leaving a highly-integrated UK would somehow be hassle free but the UK exiting a much looser union would "threaten" jobs and the economy, yet that's exactly the SNP's position.</blockquote><br />The one thing we do know (for the time being) is that Alex Salmond will campaign anywhere and with anyone for the UK to stay in the EU and that <a href="http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/politics/alex-salmond/david-cameron-lacks-a-euro-vision-1.878217">he thinks</a> he is a much better man to lead the IN campaign than the Prime Minister. Well, that is until he changes his mind again. <br /><br />On one issue Mr Salmond is right in the article linked to above: Mr Cameron has not so far mentioned "replacing the Common Fisheries Policy which is a key failure of the European Union and has never done anyone any good!". The trouble is that Mr Salmond has no clear ideas of what he wants to replace the CFP with and how would he go about doing so within the European Union where any real changes to the fisheries policy would require a treaty change with all that entails.<br /><br />Meanwhile, the Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan, an unashamed outer though prepared to come up with ideas for David Cameron to use in his negotiations, <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3095556/Dave-demand-earth-Europe-s-leaders-amazed-wants-LITTLE-says-Daniel-Hannan-Conservative-MEP.html">thinks</a> that the Prime Minister could ask for a great deal more than he has mentioned so far. One of the things he could ask for would be Britain's exit from the common fisheries policy. Yes, that would require treaty changes but any serious reforms would require that and if those reforms are not serious they are not worth negotiating for.<br /><br />Among other things the Queen's Speech touches on further developments in the process of devolution:<br /><br /><blockquote>My government will also bring forward legislation to secure a strong and lasting constitutional settlement, devolving wide-ranging powers to Scotland and Wales. Legislation will be taken forward giving effect to the Stormont House Agreement in Northern Ireland. <br /><br />My government will continue to work in cooperation with the devolved administrations on the basis of mutual respect. <br /><br />My government will bring forward changes to the standing orders of the House of Commons. These changes will create fairer procedures to ensure that decisions affecting England, or England and Wales, can be taken only with the consent of the majority of Members of Parliament representing constituencies in those parts of our United Kingdom.</blockquote><br />There is much talk about letting Scotland have the fiscal autonomy its First Minister apparently has asked for on the grounds that a real fiscal autonomy would not be to the SNP's taste. Yet, we in FAL and on this blog think that there is another way the SNP can be put on the spot as well and, maybe, induced to change its policies. <br /><br />Why not take up Mr Salmond's rather inadequate suggestion and develop it by making a withdrawal from the common fisheries policy and a complete renegotiation of fisheries agreements with other EU member states on the basis of the UK's independent control of its fishing grounds one of the cored demands? Given what a mess the CFP has been over the years, it is likely to be a very popular policy across the political spectrum.Adminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14479589914570209459noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2232812336523184238.post-31938447226885405442015-03-24T07:44:00.001-07:002015-03-24T07:44:51.650-07:00Will the election change anything?Officially election campaigns in this country last three weeks but this one seems to have gone on for many months already, frequently hitting a level of silliness that seems unparalleled until we recall past levels of silliness. It would not be a good idea to predict results as opinion polls seem very close and there are several imponderables. But it would not be unreasonable to look over the parties and their attitudes and policies (if one can call them that).<br /><br />This is going to be a make or break election for UKIP and its leader, Nigel Farage. The party has done reasonably well in the last couple of years, coming top in the elections for the European Parliament, though on a very low turn-out, and acquiring two MPs though neither of the seats was an actual victory but a re-election of a sitting member under different colours. Will they be able to build on that? The opinion polls are not particularly sanguine as UKIP’s support wavers between 13 and 15 per cent, which is likely to fall once the campaign starts in real earnest and is, in any case, spread across the country. The Liberal-Democrats may be getting worse results in the polls but their support is more concentrated in certain areas. <br /><br />Unfortunately, from our point of view, UKIP has more or less abandoned any discussion of Britain’s membership of the European Union or exit from it. Even when their candidates speak with fishermen they express shock and disgust at cuts in quotas without bothering to go into any depth on the subject that is the common fisheries policy. <br /><br />As far as the EU in general is concerned, UKIP is concentrating on two issues, one is immigration, the basics of which are a little more complicated than they make out and the other is the referendum, which they, officially, would like as soon as possible, regardless, it sometimes seems, of whether we are likely to win it or not. It is, in fact, the likelihood or otherwise of the referendum (promised by the Conservatives, not promised by Labour and semi-promised by the Liberal-Democrats) that will mean there will be no real discussion of the European Union and Britain’s role in it during the election campaign. The emphasis will be on possible renegotiations and whether they are possible and on when a referendum might take place (not, we can confidently predict, this year). <br /><br />We would prefer to see some ideas about the way forward for Britain within the EU and discussions of possible withdrawal, its method and possible consequences. In connection with that we would like to see a serious attempt by the main parties to create a fisheries policy, perhaps on the lines of the one Owen Patterson put together when he was Spokesman on the subject and which has long ago been removed from the Conservative Party website. In any case, it would need updating. In view of the general shelving of the EU as an issue with nothing more than a discussion of a referendum this is unlikely to happen either across the UK in general or in Scotland in particular. <br /><br />There remains the question of the SNP. At various times before the Scottish referendum this blog discussed the party’s views and understanding of fisheries and came to the conclusion that it was lacking in any sense of reality. This does not seem to have changed since the referendum in which their main policy plank – “an independent Scotland within the EU” – was rejected without taking away, it would seem, from the party’s electoral popularity. As things stand they are likely to be the leading party in Scotland but that does not mean that the much touted coalition with Labour will happen. Certainly, the possibility has been denied several times by Ed Miliband, the Leader of the Labour Party and has not, precisely, been welcomed by the SNP’s leadership though the occasional tantalizing hint has been thrown out.<br /><br />If this article is a little gloomy it is because one cannot help feeling gloomy as one surveys the electoral scene. Will the election change anything? As far as Britain’s role and membership of the European Union and, consequently, of the common fisheries policy, no, it will not. The Conservative Party has promised an IN/OUT referendum and that makes an important difference between the two leading parties. If they form the next government we shall have to start preparing seriously for that referendum; if not, we shall have to carry on arguing our case, in particular about fishing. Either way, the first thing FAL and other organizations of that kind will have to do after the election is to put together a viable fisheries policy that depends on us leaving the CFP and that can be and will have to be presented to the various parties. Adminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14479589914570209459noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2232812336523184238.post-3558582254914620552015-03-05T08:50:00.001-08:002015-03-05T08:50:18.412-08:00EU - Moroccan Fisheries Agreement renewedAfter a two-year hiatus the EU-Morocco Fisheries Agreement has been renewed. A couple of weeks ago the Commissioner for Environment, Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, Karmenu Vella, <a href="http://www.fis.com/fis/worldnews/worldnews.asp?monthyear=&amp;day=27&amp;id=74906&amp;l=e&amp;special=&amp;ndb=1%20target=">visited</a> "the third edition of the Salon Halieutis, organised under the high patronage of King Mohamed VI, to underline the importance of the fisheries partnership and cooperation between the EU and Morocco".<br /><br />The Agreement now comes under the supposedly reformed "new" but not that different from the "old" Common Fisheries Policy.<br /><blockquote>The new CFP seeks to improve the scientific knowledge underlying the fishing rights granted under the agreements, strengthen their governance and better promote sustainable fishing. As part of each of the EU's SFPAs, there is a significant investment in sectoral support, in Morocco's case EUR 14 million are earmarked to support the local fisheries sector, which seeks to provide increased job opportunities for local fishermen, help build a robust fisheries infrastructure, train up local seamen and get them working on EU boats, and exchange ideas and best practices.</blockquote><br />In return the countries in question have to allow the far bigger and better equipped EU fishing boats into their waters. <br /><br />Not all is plain sailing, though, as <a href="http://www.euractiv.com/sections/global-europe/legality-eu-morocco-fisheries-agreement-questioned-312385">this article</a> on EurActiv makes clear.<br /><br /><blockquote>A respected international lawyer has published an article, claiming that the fisheries agreement between the EU and Morocco is illegal, as it doesn’t contain a specific reference to the fishing zone off the coast of Western Sahara, and that the UN Security Council (UNSC) should examine the issue. <br /><br />Hans Corell, Former Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs and the Legal Counsel of the United Nations, writes in the International Judicial Monitor that UNSC should examine the legality of the EU-Morocco fisheries agreement. <br /><br />Corell, who, at the request of the UNSC delivered in 2002 a legal opinion relating to the Western Sahara, says that in the meantime, he has followed developments from a distance. <br /><br />“A very serious question in this context is the fisheries agreement between the EU and Morocco which does not contain one word – apart from the cryptic “sovereignty or jurisdiction” in Article 2 (a) – about the fact that Morocco’s ‘jurisdiction’ in the waters of Western Sahara is limited by the international rules on self-determination. Instead, the agreement and its protocols are replete with references to the “Moroccan fishing zones”, Corell writes. <br /><br />He further argues that to be legal, an agreement of this nature would have to contain an explicit reference to the fishing zone off the coast of Western Sahara, defined by coordinates.</blockquote><br />The Commission <a href="http://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2015/03/152902/eu-morocco-fisheries-agreement-complies-international-law-european-commission/">is denying</a> that there are any problems.<br /><br /><blockquote>The fisheries agreement between the EU and Morocco is “in full compliance with international law,” said Enrico Brivio, the European Commission Spokesperson for Environment, Maritime Affairs and Fisheries. <br /><br />“The Fisheries Partnership Agreement protocol is in full compliance with international law,” Enrico Brivio told EurActiv, the leading online media on EU affairs, adding that all of the EU’s agreements apply to the Western Sahara region. <br /><br />“Detailed reporting obligations on Morocco on use of Commission sectoral support ensure that the protocol serves the interests of all local population,” Brivio pointed out. <br /><br />He also stressed that the protocol’s clear reporting mechanism represents an additional tool to monitor compliance with international law.</blockquote><br />Will that off-hand response be sufficient to deal with intricate international legal matters?Adminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14479589914570209459noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2232812336523184238.post-55485018026419860442015-02-20T09:13:00.003-08:002015-02-20T09:13:49.429-08:00Time the Fishing Minister learned somethingGeorge Eustice, the Fishing Minister, never ceases to astonish one. I suppose one could say that about a lot of politicians but he is a prime example of a man who quite clearly has not understood anything about his brief. How else could one explain <a href="http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Fishing-minister-Plymouth-fishermen-better-EU/story-26054251-detail/story.html">his statements</a> as quoted in the <i>Plymouth Herald</i>?<br /><br />In his desire to destroy support for UKIP some fishermen in the Plymouth area he announced that those fishermen (and, presumably, others) are better off within the common fisheries policy than they would be outside it. Does he mean that if Britain was outside the EU, outside the CFP legislation would have to be passed by people like him and he is manifestly not fit for the job? Somehow we do not believe that but that is what his statement sounds like.<br /><blockquote>“One thing I would say is that EU rules are far too prescriptive and create too many unintended obstacles,” said Mr Eustice, who represents his home constituency of Cambourne, Redruth and Hayle in Cornwall. <br /><br />“There is a common EU objective to fish sustainably but there is now more flexibility with how we deal with that nationally. <br /><br />“For example, if a fisherman finds he’s caught far more haddock than he expected, then he can place that catch within their cod quota instead. With that [negotiation], we can change policy for the better.” <br /><br />Cod quotas were due to be cut by 65 per cent last year, said Mr Eustice, but successful EU lobbying reduced it to a 26 per cent cut. <br /><br />The Cornishman said he sympathised with fisherman who have “their boats tied up because they have used all their quota” but there was a need to “show restraint” if the fishing industry was to prosper.</blockquote><br />Surely a Minister whose job it is to know about the fishing industry must realize that the whole problem with quotas, though important to those it affects, is not the cause but the effect. The cause of the problem remains the common fisheries policy, a centralized, political structure in which decisions are taken by 28 member states for reasons that often have nothing to do with fishing. Adminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14479589914570209459noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2232812336523184238.post-91232313645933510212015-02-19T07:42:00.002-08:002015-02-19T07:42:56.778-08:00Oh yes, there are alternativesNobody knows exactly when that IN/OUT EU referendum will take place and whether it will do so at all. The Labour Party is refusing to commit itself or, to be quite precise, its Leader is refusing to commit himself, assuring all and sundry, including, it appears, members of the Shadow Cabinet, that there is no need for such a referendum but none at all. Should his party win the May election, on the other hand, he may well change his mind.<br /><br />It is quite likely that the SNP Leader has ambivalent feelings about a referendum of any kind at the moment and it is hard to tell what the Liberal-Democrats think though, it is believed, that most of them favour some kind of a referendum. (They, too, burned their fingers on the AV plebiscite.)<br /><br />The Conservative Leader has given us assurances that there will be an IN/OUT referendum, probably in 2017 though he is also promising some kind of negotiations in order to introduce radical reform in the European Union. Good luck with that. So far, the only change and reform in the EU has moved in one direction and it is not the one most people in the UK want. We can agree on that, though the same opinion polls that tell us so, also tell us that far fewer people are prepared to vote to leave the organization with which they are seriously dissatisfied, namely the EU.<br /><br />Let us assume that there will be a referendum, probably in 2017, perhaps a little later, depending on whether the EU decides to have another treaty or not. If we, that is the people who have looked at the present situation, which includes the disaster called the common fisheries policy and have looked at all past attempts to bring in meaningful reforms and the failure of those attempts and have decided that this construct cannot be changed and the UK would be a good deal better off outside it are to win the referendum, we need to produce cogent arguments. As Alex Salmond found out in the recent Independence Referendum, they have to be very cogent, indeed, and reliance on vague promises of great benefits whose source is unknown will be insufficient.<br /><br />Already we have heard noises from the supporters of the status quo about there being no alternative; about Britain (the country with the fifth largest economy in the world) being too small to survive outside a big block; about the impossibility of making our voice heard on important issues outside the EU; and so on.<br /><br />This blog has pointed out on a number of occasions (too numerous to link to) that, far from that being the case, it is <i>within</i> the EU, <i>within</i> the common fisheries policy that we cannot make our voices heard. Norway and Iceland, even Greenland or, rather, Denmark on behalf of Greenland, negotiate themselves on matters to do with the North Atlantic fisheries, yet they are all much smaller than Britain; Russia may not be smaller but its economy is, considerably so. The UK, on the other hand, does not negotiate - the EU does and it does so on behalf of the 28 member states.<br /><br />Many of us have been saying all this for some time through Save Britain's Fish and the Fishermen's Association Limited but have frequently been pushed to the fringes of the political debate. There is, however, a change in the political air.<br /><br />This week there were two events in London, one an evening panel discussion at the <a href="http://www.iea.org.uk/">Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA)</a> and one a half-day conference, actually in the European Parliament building (formerly the Conservative Central Office), organized by the Conservative MEP <a href="http://www.dcbmep.org/">David Campbell-Bannerman</a>. Both dealt with the problem of alternatives to EU membership. What can Britain do if she leaves this somewhat sclerotic, economically laggard and politically undemocratic structure?<br /><br />Not all the alternatives were covered but even the ones that were: taking up our <a href="http://www.wto.org/">WTO</a> membership rather than letting the EU negotiate on our behalf, re-joining <a href="http://www.efta.int/">EFTA</a>, trying to join the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Area">EEA</a> (European Economic Area), which would have some serious disadvantages, staying in a customs union with the EU or signing a special agreement while acting as an independent WTO member, all have one thing in common that is of interest to readers of this blog: all of them would release the UK fishing industry from the dead grip of Brussels and hand it back to Britain, its Parliament and the industry's members.<br /><br />The point is that there are many alternatives to the EU and they can be investigated and discussed. The notion that we have nowhere to go and had better stay where we are "for fear of finding something worse" is ridiculous and needs to be destroyed.Adminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14479589914570209459noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2232812336523184238.post-86705482154491568892015-02-11T09:11:00.002-08:002015-02-11T09:20:06.760-08:00Fishing protectionFrequently, the best way of getting information is by asking questions, written or oral in the Houses of Parliament, particularly the House of Lords. On February 2 <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/lords/lord-west-of-spithead/3834">Lord West of Spithead</a> <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Lords/2015-02-02/HL4601">asked</a>:<br /><blockquote>To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the reduction in the number of offshore patrol vessels available for fishing protection on their meeting their responsibilities within the United Kingdom economic exclusion zone.</blockquote><br />It is worth noting that what is also at stake is the equal observance of the many various rules. HMG in the shape of <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/lords/lord-de-mauley/2202">Lord de Mauley</a> replied: <br /><br /><blockquote>Responsibility for fisheries protection in English waters lies with the Maritime Management Organisation (MMO). Fishery protection services in English and Welsh waters are provided by the Royal Navy (RN) under a formal agreement with the MMO. The service is provided by 3 offshore patrol vessels of the Fisheries Protection Squadron. <br /><br />The MMO has identified that the provision of 500 days at sea is currently sufficient to enable the UK to meet its obligations for at sea surveillance and inspection under the Common Fisheries Policy. This assessment is kept under constant review as enforcement obligations and priorities change. <br /><br />As the following figures show this minimum commitment has been maintained for the last 2 years and is projected to be delivered again for the year 2014 – 15. <br /><br />2012 – 13 562 daysbr/&gt; <br />2013 – 14 512.5 days<br /><br />2014 – 15 509 days (projected)<br /><br />The financial contribution to the RN for this service has been reduced in return for a move from dedicated 24 hour fishery protection days to 9 hour days. These days enable surveillance and inspection of fishing vessels to be undertaken during key fishing periods. The minimum number of days required has been maintained during the current financial year despite the fact that one offshore patrol vessel has been deployed elsewhere for part of the year.</blockquote><br /><br />Well, that is very nice, of course but it does not precisely answer the question about the impact. We are merely being assured, as so often before, that whatever the government does is perfectly adequate. Past experience, on the whole, would indicate otherwise.Adminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14479589914570209459noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2232812336523184238.post-68443731132229352052015-01-23T07:47:00.002-08:002015-01-23T07:47:47.512-08:00The Latvian Presidency's plansIn case anyone has missed it (make that most people rather than anyone), Latvia has taken on the rotating presidency of the European Union. So, naturally, their representatives have been presenting plans for the next six months and, we have to assume, somewhere among those plans there is the usual one about cutting red tape and encouraging business and entrepreneurship.<br /><br />Here is what the Minister of Agriculture Janis Duklavs <a href="http://www.baltic-course.com/eng/markets_and_companies/?doc=101421">said</a> to the Committee for Fisheries (PECH) in the European Parliament:<br /><blockquote>Multiannual management plan for Baltic Sea cod, Baltic herring and sprat stocks is the first multiannual fishing plan of the new generation. This file is essential for ensuring sustainability of the stocks and at the same time offers more predictability and certainty to the industry. The proposal is therefore on the top of the Presidency’s priorities. <br /><br />Proposal for Regulation on introduction of the landing obligation: the Latvian Presidency will be fully involved in the outstanding work on the new rules. The obligation to land some fish species entered into force on 1 January this year, but fishermen still have no clear rules on the application. The EU institutional agreement on this file should be completed as soon as possible. <br /><br />External dimension of fisheries (sustainable fishing partnership agreements with third countries, negotiations with coastal states and representation in international organizations): the Minister underlined the importance of fisheries agreements for a viable and competitive EU fishing fleet in high-seas. It is expected that the work on negotiations for agreements with Mauritania, Kiribati, Seychelles and other countries would be smoothly continued in the first half of 2015.<br /><br /></blockquote>Let us note immediately the reference to the "competitive EU fishing fleet". Whether it is competitive or not is irrelevant. Nothing much in the EU is competitive, after all. The point is that it is an EU fishing fleet. Or, let me spell it out, for the benefit of politicians, should they bother to read this blog, no amount of reforming has changed the fact that the UK (and that would have been true for a Scotland "independent within the EU) has no fishing fleet of its own while the country remains part of the Common Fisheries Policy, that is, part of the European Union.<br /><br />That, of course, applies to the internal arrangements as well. Decisions will be taken for political reasons at the centre and relayed down to the regional institutions for them to implement. That, in essence, is the extent of those much-vaunted reforms.<br /><br /><br />Adminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14479589914570209459noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2232812336523184238.post-38552585202474961352014-12-24T12:04:00.002-08:002014-12-24T12:04:51.011-08:00Merry ChristmasA very merry Christmas to all or readers with some music, which is not entirely relevant either to Christmas or to fishing: a jazz version by the incomparable Maxine Sullivan of that old favourite, Loch Lomond:<br /><br /><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/zJm3wdb2r8s" width="420"></iframe>Adminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14479589914570209459noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2232812336523184238.post-68045492481836601102014-12-16T09:36:00.000-08:002014-12-16T09:36:15.416-08:00It's the policy not the quotasUKIP is cock-a-hoop at <a href="http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/EU-quotas-mean-ll-voting-UKIP-Plymouth-fishermen/story-25712233-detail/story.html">this article</a> in the <i>Plymouth Herald</i>. <br /><blockquote>FISHING quotas could kill off independent boats, fishermen have warned - and say they will be voting UKIP for “drastic political” change. <br /><br />The comments came as fisherman at Plymouth Fisheries in Fish Quay met on Friday with Clare Moody, Labour MEP for the South West. <br /><br />At least four boats moored in the quay were sporting purple UKIP flags. <br /><br />When asked why fisherman were supporting Nigel Farage’s party, Bracken Pearce said: “Because what have the other parties done for us? The tweaks they are making aren’t working and we need some drastic change.”</blockquote><br />One can understand the frustrations fishermen feel at yet another round of cuts in quotas based all too often on less than convincing evidence but it is about time they, their organizations, their spokespersons and, above all, politicians including those in UKIP understood the basic facts of life: it is not about the quotas but about the policy as a whole. As long as we are members of the European Union (and we hear more about that referendum than about Brexit from UKIP these days) we remain members of the Common Fisheries Policy; and as long as we remain part of that we do not control our fisheries and cannot do so. The quotas are a side issue. We need to concentrate on the main one. Adminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14479589914570209459noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2232812336523184238.post-20301998092077862352014-12-06T08:52:00.000-08:002014-12-06T08:52:07.425-08:00Something a little differentToday is the Feast of St Nicholas, a fourth century Greek bishop and saint. He is usually associated with children and present giving. But he is also the patron saint of fishermen, which is appropriate to this blog as well as of sailors, merchants, archers, repentant thieves, children, pawnbrokers and students in various cities and countries around Europe and of the Varangian Guard of the Byzantine emperors, who protected his relics in Bari. <br /><br />In Greece and Russia he is also known as Nicholas the Wonderworker because of the many miracles attributed to him. Hmmm. Perhaps we should invoke him more often.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-LdnBZsBwCLA/VIM0IJJPBoI/AAAAAAAAACk/n3UwILmQQuc/s1600/St_Nicholas02.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-LdnBZsBwCLA/VIM0IJJPBoI/AAAAAAAAACk/n3UwILmQQuc/s1600/St_Nicholas02.jpg" height="320" width="278" /></a></div><br />Adminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14479589914570209459noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2232812336523184238.post-78686887047112779962014-11-25T07:25:00.001-08:002014-11-25T07:27:00.807-08:00Political developmentsThe Scottish referendum is over and we can turn our attention to other political matters among which Britain's membership of the European Union is one of the most important ones.<br /><br />In connection with that we have to note that, unexpectedly, UKIP now has two MPs (as well as <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/lords/?sort=1&amp;type=other">three peers</a>). The two are <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/mr-douglas-carswell/1527">Douglas Carswell</a>, MP for Clacton and <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/mark-reckless/4049">Mark Reckless</a>, MP for Rochester and Strood. Neither of those seats is exactly a UKIP victory as both MPs were incumbents as Conservatives and fought the by-elections under a different flag. Mr Carswell, majority in this by-election was <a href="http://yourfreedomandours.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/another-earthquake.html">even more handsome</a> than it had been in previous elections when he had stood as a Tory, even allowing for that fall in electoral turn-out. Mr Reckless, on the other hand, <a href="http://yourfreedomandours.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/mark-reckless-keeps-his-seat.html">reduced his majority quite considerably</a>.<br /><br />Or, in other words, we have no idea how this will play in next year's General Election. It is reasonable to assume that Clacton will stay UKIP but that is less likely for Rochester and Strood and to this day we have not had a single UKIP victory for the Commons, which matters considerably more than the European Parliament.<br /><br />Still, they are there in the House and will stay there till next May at least. Will this make any difference? This is what nobody can predict. Two MPs cannot make too much difference in either voting or debating matters though it is fair to say that Messrs Carswell and Reckless will have some support among members of other parties, especially the Conservative one.<br /><br />There is also the possibility that one or two other MPs might decide to defect to UKIP and call a by-election with unpredictable results. So far, nobody is moving in that direction and Mr Reckless's result is not encouraging to anyone who might be thinking in those terms.<br /><br />The problem is that UKIP has become a little unpredictable as well. The party whose purpose was campaigning for British withdrawal from the European Union (and, incidentally, from the pernicious Common Fisheries Policy) now prefers not to refer to that subject. Instead they concentrate on subsidiary subjects like immigration and focus their campaign on demands for a speedy IN/OUT referendum.<br /><br />There are two problems with that. One is that the result of that referendum is moot. In fact, going by opinion polls, one would have to say that the likelihood of an IN vote is very high. It would, therefore, be inadvisable from our point of view to have a referendum too early, before we have organized our troops and, above all, marshalled our arguments that would have to include explanations of how we would exit and what would we do in the country afterwards. How would we organize fisheries in this country once out of the CFP? There are many ideas around and we need to have some clear arguments.<br /><br />Secondly, if it is a referendum one wants then a Conservative government is a better bet than a Labour one and if the Conservative lose too many seats to or because of UKIP then we shall have Ed Miliband as Prime Minister and he has already made it clear that he is not interested in calling a referendum.<br /><br />The two UKIP MPs have not been back in the Commons for very long and have not, therefore, had a chance to speak about many matters, including fishing. We must assume that they oppose the CFP but we do not know what they think should be put in its place. In fact, we do not even know how they envisage Britain's exit (known in some circles as Brexit) and what they think should be done afterwards. What sort of agreements will have to be negotiated, for example? We must wait and see what they will say.<br /><br />On the other hand we do not have to wait for another MP, one <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11250723/Owen-Paterson-Tory-MPs-who-defect-are-stupid.html">who has made it clear that he has not the slightest intention of leaving</a> the Conservatives for UKIP and that is, former Cabinet Minister for the Environment, Owen Paterson.<br /><br />Readers of this blog know Mr Paterson and his ideas as he was spokesman for fisheries before the 2010 election and is responsible for a detailed plan for the British fishing industry outside the EU and the CFP. (It seems not to be available any longer on the Conservative website so we shall have to find another link for it.) The policy was produced in 2005 and was accepted as such but was discarded when David Cameron became leaders. Its details may well be out of date slightly but it is a strong set of ideas that one can build on.<br /><br />Mr Paterson <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30173154">has made a speech</a> to a reasonably eurosceptic think-tank, <a href="http://businessforbritain.org/">Business for Britain</a> and he called on the Prime Minister to invoke Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon that lays down the procedure for a member state to leave the European Union before any renegotiation. (As a matter of fact, this is considerably stronger and more outspoken than the usual mealy-mouthed pronouncements by Business for Britain and its various spokespersons.)<br /><blockquote>The prime minister's promise last year to hold a vote on Europe in 2017 if the Conservatives win the next election was seen as an attempt to halt the rise of UKIP, which senior Tories feared could prevent them from winning an overall majority at next May's general election. <br /><br />But four days after UKIP defeated the Tories in the Rochester and Strood by-election, Mr Paterson suggested to Mr Cameron he had to be prepared to leave the EU if he wants negotiations on a new relationship with Brussels to succeed. <br /><br />He urged him to give a manifesto commitment to invoking article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. <br /><br />This would give formal notice of Britain's intention to quit the EU and would spark two years of negotiations ahead of a 2017 referendum.</blockquote><br />Unlike calls for a referendum and chatter about immigration (important or otherwise) this goes to the heart of the problem: Britain's membership of the EU, the need to leave and to negotiate a different arrangement. So far there has not been a response from Downing Street, which indicates that Mr Cameron and his advisers take this development very seriously. At least, we hope that is what it indicates. Because this is, indeed, a serious development. A senior Conservative MP with a great deal of experience and with every intention of staying in the party and fighting the battle has stated the need for a real policy on the subject.<br /><br />James Delingpole <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/11/25/Owen-Paterson-makes-his-bid-for-the-Iron-Throne">puts it all much more forcefully</a> on Breitbart-London, adding for good measure that UKIP is keeping out of the spat because they do not have a real EU exit strategy. This from a man who has been seen for a while as little more than a spokesman for UKIP is quite a strong statement.Adminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14479589914570209459noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2232812336523184238.post-59496962345628975752014-11-09T05:29:00.003-08:002014-11-09T05:29:46.530-08:00We will remember them<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qkTynx_e3qE/VF9sM6Zh32I/AAAAAAAAACU/ofl_rgO1ElI/s1600/poppies.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qkTynx_e3qE/VF9sM6Zh32I/AAAAAAAAACU/ofl_rgO1ElI/s1600/poppies.jpg" /></a></div><br />For once, a posting not about the common fisheries policy or about political shenanigans.<br /><br />Many readers of this blog would have taken part in local ceremonies of remembrance but those who were in Whitehall, watched on TV or listened on the radio to the grand and moving ceremony at the Cenotaph would have noticed that a wreath was laid on behalf of the Merchant Mariners and the Fishing Fleets. That is as it should be. Without them the war on the sea could not have been fought and many lost their lives in both big wars.<br /><br /><i>They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:<br />Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.<br />At the going down of the sun and in the morning<br />We will remember them.</i>Adminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14479589914570209459noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2232812336523184238.post-85264509867730817172014-10-27T10:28:00.002-07:002014-10-27T10:28:45.158-07:00Fisheries Commissioner confirmed. - phew!Readers of this blog may have noticed that there has been a certain amount of entertainment as the Members of the European Parliament threw around their insignificant weight and held up various Commissioners' confirmation for all sorts of reasons.<br /><br />They were not altogether happy with the nomination of Karmenu Vella as <a href="http://trawlingfortruth.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/the-new-commissioner.html">Commissioner for Maritime Affairs, Environment and Fisheries </a>but it was not the fisheries part of the portfolio that <a href="http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/meps-back-vella-but-ask-for-revised-mandate/">bothered them</a>.<br /><blockquote>Members of the European Parliament’s environment committee have said they are still not satisfied with the positioning of environmental issues in the new structure of the European Commission. But they will not hold hostage the nomination of Karmenu Vella in order to get it changed.</blockquote><br />What a relief, eh?<br /><br />The <i>European Voice</i> ran <a href="http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/karmenu-vellas-confirmation-hearing-live-blog/">a live blog</a> about the confirmation as it happened.<br /><br />There were a few mildly interesting moments, the moment when Commissioner-to-be Vella held up photographs of his grandchildren not being one of them, except for the fact, not mentioned by him, that <br /><br /><blockquote>the mother of one of those children sits on this environment committee. Miriam Dalli, a new Maltese MEP, is Vella’s daughter-in-law. She recused herself from participating in today’s hearing.</blockquote><br />Much has been made of Commission President Juncker's restructuring of the Commission though we cannot tell how that will work until it starts working (or not). In any case, the main point about the Common Fisheries Policy being a centralized EU policy and decisions will be taken, for political reasons, in Brussels, remains.<br /><br />David Keating did ask something interesting:<br /><br /><blockquote>During his press conference I asked him if there is a risk that under the strategy identified by Juncker and himself to make sustainability and environment “everybody’s responsibility”, it actually becomes nobody’s responsibility – particularly if there is no vice-president for environment/sustainability. <br /><br />He responded that this approach is better than having environment in its own silo, with policies being made without co-ordination with areas like industry and economy. Juncker’s new approach to the structure of the European Commission will mean a better result for the environment, he insisted.</blockquote><br />We shall be watching Mr Vella's activity. Adminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14479589914570209459noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2232812336523184238.post-43000770528193793202014-09-22T09:19:00.001-07:002014-09-22T09:19:45.703-07:00The real fight starts nowImportant though the Scottish Independence Referendum was, in some ways, as this blog tried to explain, it was something of a side issue for the Scottish fishermen. The fact is that had Scotland voted YES, had there been an "independent" Scotland within the EU as the SNP proposed it, the fishing industry would not have experienced any changes: within the Common Fisheries Policy plans and decisions would have continued to be taken centrally for political reasons. Scotland would not have been taking part in negotiations with Norway, Iceland or Greenland (well, Denmark on its behalf) and so-called reforms of the CFP would not have changed much in reality.<br /><br />It is clear from <a href="http://www.cityam.com/1411046935/who-won-where-how-scottish-councils-voted-independence-referendum-results-map?utm_medium=Email&amp;utm_source=Email&amp;utm_campaign=140919%20-%20CMU">the way the votes fell out</a> that areas of Scotland where fishing is important voted overwhelmingly in favour of staying in the Union (and not in the European version of it, either). As did, incidentally, areas where oil is important.<br /><br />So, now that the question of Scotland's role in the United Kingdom has been settle for some time to come, it is time to turn our attention to the real battle: the restoration of powers to where they belong and that is this country and its people.<br /><br />There will be much on that subject in future postings. This is merely a battle cry.Adminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14479589914570209459noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2232812336523184238.post-5118894556517817782014-09-12T08:53:00.000-07:002014-09-12T08:54:35.873-07:00The new CommissionerWell, the job has gone to Malta and not to a landlocked country as it could have done so easily. The new Commissioner for Environment, Maritime Affairs and Fisheries is Karmenu Vella, 64, a Socialist and long-serving politician. Doesn't that make one's heart lift in happiness? Come what may, Mr Vella will be considerably more important in decisions that relate to the Scottish fisheries than, for example, Richard Lochhead.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.ciwm-journal.co.uk/archives/9835">What can we find out</a> about Mr Vella?<br /><blockquote>Mr Vella is a member of the Maltese Labour Party and has previously served in the government as Minister for Public Works, Minister for Industry and Minister for Tourism.</blockquote><br />So he is going to know a great deal about fisheries. Of course. <br /><br />Not that it matters. After all, he has advisers to advise him and he is, one assumes, picking his team, even as we speak. Whether there will be anyone there to speak for the Scottish fisheries is a moot point as his portfolio is to do with the EU and its policies. The UK is only one member state as will be Scotland, should it become "independent" within the EU. The only difference being is that, should such an eventuality occur, it will be a considerably smaller and even less important state. What a jolly prospect. The principles of the Common Fisheries Policy will not change, no matter which way that referendum goes. <br /><br />In his mission letter to Mr Vella, Commission President Juncker said that he would like him to focus on the following: <br /> <br /><blockquote>◾“continuing to overhaul the existing environmental legislative framework to make it fit for purpose. In the first part of the mandate, I would ask you to carry out an in-depth evaluation of the Birds and Habitats directives and assess the potential for merging them into a more modern piece of legislation.<br /><br />◾“taking stock of where we stand in the negotiations on the air strategy. We need to know whether our approach addresses the right sources of air pollution with the right instruments. In the light of your assessment, we can then see how best to conduct the negotiations.<br /><br />◾“assessing the state of play of the Circular Economy package in the light of the first reactions of the European Parliament and Council to see whether and how it is consistent with our jobs and growth agenda and our broader environmental objectives.<br /><br />◾“implementing the recently agreed reform of the Common Fisheries Policy to put the EU firmly on the path of a sustainable fishing sector and fishing communities.<br /><br />◾“engaging in shaping international ocean governance in the UN, in other multilateral fora and bilaterally with key global partners.” </blockquote><br />As we can see, the so-called reform of the Common Fisheries Policy has not altered anything (as this blog has pointed out a few times) - the fisheries sector remains a single one for the whole of the European Union with the ultimate aim of equal access for all member states.<br /><br />Nothing but an exit from the EU and a restoration of the fisheries policy to this country will change that. Is that more likely to happen if Scotland goes "independent" or if it stays in the Union? Adminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14479589914570209459noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2232812336523184238.post-82716814225664067262014-09-09T09:47:00.003-07:002014-09-09T09:47:31.355-07:00As Scotland approaches that referendumWe need to get certain things right. This blog, obviously, deals with issues of fisheries only but it is worth considering whether a YES vote would help Scotland's fishermen. In general, we have concluded that it will not as long as the intention is to stay in the European Union, that is the Common Fisheries Policy. <br /><br />On top of that we do not think that any of the politicians who are taking part in the debate (more or less) understand certain basic facts or even stay true to one opinion. Here is a letter from Tom Hay, Honorary Chairman of FAL on Alex Salmond's changing views: <br /><br /><blockquote><b>Alex Salmond’s Policies Past, and Present</b><br /><br />In the House of Commons on 02/03/2004 Alex Salmond presented his Fisheries Jurisdiction Bill to withdraw from the Common Fisheries Policy and to restore National Control to Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland.<br /><br />He began by saying: This Bill is supported by members of all eight political Parties represented in this Chamber, and is a plea for fair treatment from one of the great natural resource industries of our land, and whatever the fate of this measure today this is a demand which will return until it is successful.<br /><br />He went on to say that fishermen regard this policy as a charade, a device to rob them of their birthright, and if we look back more than 30 years ago this country accepted the adoption of the CFP in negotiations to enter the Common Market, with its central provision of equal access to a common resource to support that view. Documents released under the 30 years rule show that this was done by the then Government in full knowledge of the possible damage to our own fishing industry.<br /><br />Sadly however as far as I know he never presented it again.<br /><br />He said if we were in a position where there were no fish in the sea, we might have to accept reluctantly that nothing could be done to sustain our fishing industry, although it would still be a very good reason for changing the policy that had brought this about. However, that is not the position. Even according to the hotly disputed ICES figures many of our stocks are in a robust condition such as haddock, prawns, herring and mackerel. The sea is teeming with fish but it may soon be empty of our fishermen.<br /><br />How right he was! As a result of various de-commissioning schemes, 397 vessels have been removed from the Scottish demersal fleet, and during the same period 285 nephrops vessels have also been removed. A total of 682 vessels mostly of our larger ships have been broken up on the eastern shores of the North sea and elsewhere, to satisfy the shameful demands of the EU treaties which state that all Community fishermen must have equal access to, and use of the fishing grounds falling under the sovereignty and coming within the jurisdiction of the member states.<br /><br />Thus Alex Salmond for years scathingly but rightly attacked the Conservative Party for surrendering our fishing rights and fish stocks to an alien foreign power in Brussels.<br /><br />Now it appears that the very thing that he vehemently detested has become SNP policy.<br /><br />In mid-summer 2013 the Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, publicly stated that Scotland is an ancient European nation, and that an independent Scotland will continue in European Union membership. Our country has the lion’s share of all the EU’s oil reserves, a huge proportion of the continent’s renewable energy as well as some of the richest fishing grounds.<br /><br />Would Brussels want to lose such assets when energy security is one of the dominating issues of the 21st Century?. Would Spanish, French and Portuguese fishermen want to be blocked from fishing the lucrative waters in Scotland.s sectors of the North Sea, and West Atlantic, she continued.<br /><br />The SNP should be thoroughly ashamed that by their actions their declared aim of EU integration at any price will result once again in our fishermen being treated as expendable, merely to satisfy the SNP’s nauseating ambition to get a seat at the top table in Brussels, where they will achieve nothing.<br /><br />Thomas Hay<br /><br />Honorary Chairman FAL </blockquote><br /><br />Succinctly put, as always. One can only marvel at the lack of logic displayed by the Deputy First Minister in her statements. Adminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14479589914570209459noreply@blogger.com0